he_who_is_nobody wrote:[Again, I never said seems to have been means is not. Your analogy even demonstrates this. If someone says "the book seems to have been publish, they are stating an opinion to which they do not know the truth. When someone says a book is published, than they actually know it was published. See the difference? Again, stop thinking in dichotomies.

ok so it would be fare to conclude that according to SH´s opinion de universe is FT, which is what I ve been saying all along.

Nope. The very next line (that you kept leaving out) says:

Stephen Hawkings in "A Brief History of Time" wrote:Of course, there might be other forms of intelligent life, not dreamed of even by writers of science fiction, that did not require the light of a star like the sun or the heavier chemical elements that are made in stars and are flung back into space when the stars explode.

This reads to me like he is poking fun at the counterfactual nature of the fine-tuning. Thus, if you are going to conclude that Hawking accepts fine-tuning, you must also conclude that Hawking believes fine-tuning is not necessary for intelligent life. One might as well use that quote to conclude that Hawking is arguing for Yahweh based on what I just quoted.

what SH, is doing is presenting a possibility, maybe intelligent beings can exist without stars, but he is not making any assertion, he is not asserting that these beings exist.

I am tired of this, I did my research and found out that SH grants the FT of the universe, so you ether take my word or do some research in any source you consider reliable.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Ice melts at higher temperatures, agree?

Adding more liquid water to a volume will cause it to rise, agree?

of course I agree, but if one uses your logic we would have to reject those simple and uncontroversial statements.

based on your logoc.....Maybe a big portion of the ice is made out of some wild chemicals that doesn't melts so easily, maybe there is an unknown mechanism that would prevent ice form melting, maybe the melting point of ice changes tomorrow.

and the best part of this is that according to your logic, I don't have to prove any of this statements, you are the one who has to prove that all of these statements are wrong.

Ice melts at higher temperatures, agree?

Adding more liquid water to a volume will cause it to rise, agree?

well...

entropy increases as time passes

Life can only exists if the entropy is low.......agree?

It is statistically more likely to have high entropy than low entropy.......agree?

these are all uncontroversial statements, these statements are as uncontroversial as the idea that ice melts with heat.........but using your logic you could always find reasons to be skeptic.

both statements are base on counterfactuals, both statements are based on uncontroversial premises, but in both cases one can invoke an unknown mechanism that would prevent this to happen

1 Ice would melt and San Francisco would be flooded2 and life would not exist if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high

so until you present a good reason to accept 1 and reject 2, I have no other option but to assume that you reject 2 simply because you personally don't like the implications.

So as I told you earlier, this is my conclusion,

leroy wrote: these Counterfactuals are enough to convince the majority of experts that the universe is FT, and even you grant some statements that are based on the same type of counterfactuals. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT and you haven provided any good reasons for making such an exception.

If I am not mistaken, you are the one using the fine tuning argument that includes the assumption that there are two or three options for explaining the fine tuning argument:1. Necessity 2. Chance3. DesignAnd that design is the best option over the others to explain the fine tuning.

If you are not willing to defend your notion of a designer (which is not a model, nor does it count as a hypothesis) than you are not willing to defend the fine tuning argument.

If a theists is not willing to defend the fine tuning argument, that makes the truth of the title of this topic more obvious.

I am just sharing my opinion, I personally believe that it would be more meaningful to defend design against a hypothesis that you hold, rather than defending it against multiverses which is a hypothesis that non of us accept.

I say that the Multi-verse makes less assumptions than the "explanation" you want to propose

I don't agree, but who cares, a falsified hypothesis is worst than a hypothesis that has not been falsified, regardless of which hypothesis is more parsimonious.

If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and each posible universe is equally probable, than we obviously not conclude that simpler universe are more abundant. If all possible universes are equally likely, then simple universes are equally likely than complex universes.

there are many possible universes with just 1 star, and few possible universes with many stars........this is what I meant

If you change your premise 1 into this:

1 If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and more simpler universe are more likely to exist, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist

ok I accept the change

This would solve the contradiction. But then I would not agree with the statement that simpler universe like one with only one sun and one earth, are more likely than the one we are in. Unwarranted assumption of probability yet again

we know for the second law of thermodynamics, that small areas of order (low entropy) are more likely than big ones....this is not an assumption, this is something that we know...

from sean carol..

You can get a universe like ours that way, but you’re overwhelmingly more likely to get just a single galaxy, or a single planet, or even just a single brain

or to put it this way...a universe with many stars and galaxies can only exist if the initial entropy is very, very low........while a universe with just 1 star could exist even if the entropy is relatively high.........since high entropy is more probable than low entropy, small universes with 1 star are statistically more probable, and therefore more abundant in a multiverse scenario.

Roger Penrose did the math and he calculated that the probability of having a universe with 1 star and 1 planet is>1 in 10^600 and the probability of a universe big universe with many stars and galaxies 1 in 10^1230

in a multiverse for every big universe with many stars there are 10^630 universes with 1 star........please take a minute of your precios time and think about how big is the number 10^630

3 has the same problem. Why are universes that contain life, with hallucinating agents, more abundant (more likely) than those with agents that aren't hallucinating?

No, what I am saying is that there would be more observers that live in a universe with 1 star that hallucinate than observers in big universes with many stars.

This is especially the problem when you have to assume that most universes that contains life are so perfect that even agents that are constantly hallucinating are able to survive. Why aren't universes that are inhospitable to life more abundant, thus life in most universes wouldn't last very long if it was constantly hallucinating and only allow life that are getting reliable information about there surroundings that enables them to survive

first. you don't need agents that are constantly hallucinating, all you need is agents that hallucinate 1 time and for a few seconds

second hallucinating distant galaxies and stars does not seem to have any negative effect in survival

lets assume that only 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,1%of all the universes with 1 star contain at least 1 agent that hallucinates....even in that case agents that hallucinate would be unimaginably more abundant than observers in big universes like ours.

[

All you have done is replacing Boltzmann brains with universes that contains hallucinating agents. The same unwarranted assumption is still being made

this assumption is granted by the second law, it is not controversial.

First, by your argument, I don't have to accept that I am a BB. I have to accept that I am more likely a BB

well, no because you are not a multiverse theorist.

. But still I don't accept the implications that you believe. What if universes like our own are more likely and Boltzmann brains (or hallucinating agents) are unlikely? You haven't done any calculations to indicate that this is an implication, so I don't accept it.

again, the second law confirms this, it is more likely to have small ares with low entropy than big ones......if you have a swimming pool with average temperature of 20 degrees, it would be more likely to find a small drop of water at 99 degrees than to find a complete gallon.

Non sequitur, even if I accept that I am more likely a BB or even definitely a BB. That doesn't mean the multi verse proposition is wrong. If I am hallucinating, that doesn't mean the multiverse is not true. These are not incompatible.

no one is saying that the BBP proves that multiverses do not exist........what the BBP proves is that multiverse is not a valid explanation for our observations of us living in a big, ordered and FT universe.

.

An explanation MUST contain the HOW, because the HOW is the explanation.

given your very particular definitions of explanation and phenomena then maybe I agree...

however one can state that the cause of X is Y even if you don't know how Y did it.

I already presented the reasons why this is true. feel free to pretend to disagree.....

You said that the constants were fine tuned to be life permitting, thus you argue that the universe is fined tuned for life, which is not by observation. Why isn't the universe fine tuned for making black holes, supernovae, or just the existence of hydrogen itself and life is merely a by product. But that is what you are now saying in a sense, that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of all these things there are not life, but even the fine tuning for the purpose of stars, atoms, etc still results in the laughable inefficient production of and the conditions that barely allow life to exist.

again that objection is based on a straw man.

the thing is that we all have some observations....

for example we can observe that we live in a universe with low entropy, we know that low entropy states are unlikely to occur by chance, and we know that life could only exist if the entropy is low. this is what we mean by fine tuned for life.

there are many states and different combinations in which particles can exist but only few of this possible states would be low entropy states, life can only exist if the entropy is low meaning that the life permitting rage is narrow.

this only concerns the low entropy of the universe, there are around 25 other analogous values.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[Again, I never said seems to have been means is not. Your analogy even demonstrates this. If someone says "the book seems to have been publish, they are stating an opinion to which they do not know the truth. When someone says a book is published, than they actually know it was published. See the difference? Again, stop thinking in dichotomies.

ok so it would be fare to conclude that according to SH´s opinion de universe is FT, which is what I ve been saying all along.

Correct. Just like in his opinion, fine-tuning does not matter, because intelligent life could exist without it. Cannot have one opinion without the other. His opinions would also be different from what he actually knows to be true.

leroy wrote:

Nope. The very next line (that you kept leaving out) says:

[...]

This reads to me like he is poking fun at the counterfactual nature of the fine-tuning. Thus, if you are going to conclude that Hawking accepts fine-tuning, you must also conclude that Hawking believes fine-tuning is not necessary for intelligent life. One might as well use that quote to conclude that Hawking is arguing for Yahweh based on what I just quoted.

what SH, is doing is presenting a possibility, maybe intelligent beings can exist without stars, but he is not making any assertion, he is not asserting that these beings exist.

Just like he did not assert that fine-tuning was a thing. Again, seems to have been is not is. If he is not asserting this than he was not asserting fine-tuning as well.

leroy wrote:I am tired of this, I did my research and found out that SH grants the FT of the universe, so you ether take my word or do some research in any source you consider reliable.

Or I can read that whole paragraph and see that he does not grant it, unless you also agree he grants fine-tuning does not matter for intelligent life.

leroy wrote:

You are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Ice melts at higher temperatures, agree?

Adding more liquid water to a volume will cause it to rise, agree?

of course I agree, but if one uses your logic we would have to reject those simple and uncontroversial statements.

My logic? I think much like free will, determinism, evolution, and phenomena, logic is another word that you do not know the proper definition.

leroy wrote:based on your logoc.....Maybe a big portion of the ice is made out of some wild chemicals that doesn't melts so easily, maybe there is an unknown mechanism that would prevent ice form melting, maybe the melting point of ice changes tomorrow.

You are the one stating things like that. You are the one that is saying gravity can be different. You are the one that is saying that changing gravity will lead to differences because all other initial conditions will stay the same. I am the one dealing in reality and I am the one that keeps asking you to deal in it.

leroy wrote:and the best part of this is that according to your logic, I don't have to prove any of this statements, you are the one who has to prove that all of these statements are wrong.

This is simple projection on your part. Again, you think a fundamental force of the universe can be different, and you are basing a whole argument off of that. I keep asking you to demonstrate that, and you retort by telling me to prove you wrong. Again, I accept reality, while you would rather deal with imagination.

leroy wrote:

Ice melts at higher temperatures, agree?

Adding more liquid water to a volume will cause it to rise, agree?

well...

entropy increases as time passes

Correct.

leroy wrote:Life can only exists if the entropy is low.......agree?

Not according to Hawking. Remember, he thinks intelligent life can exist without that.

leroy wrote:It is statistically more likely to have high entropy than low entropy.......agree?

Let us see the statistics. The last time you tried to deal with math was hilarious.

This is the second time I have seen you do this, but it seems like all you are doing is using the term fine-tuning to refer to the initial conditions of our universe. If you want to say fine-tuning means the initial conditions than just say it. However, that would make it meaningless to the point you are trying to prove with it.

leroy wrote:these are all uncontroversial statements, these statements are as uncontroversial as the idea that ice melts with heat.........but using your logic you could always find reasons to be skeptic.

First off, you have not shown any statistics demonstrating anything. Second, Hawking would disagree with you on intelligent life needing low entropy. Third, a source you used earlier, using counterfactuals, demonstrate that the range was large. Thus, it seems the only uncontroversial thing you state was that entropy increase overtime based on your own sources.

leroy wrote:both statements are base on counterfactuals, both statements are based on uncontroversial premises, but in both cases one can invoke an unknown mechanism that would prevent this to happen

Wrong. See above.

leroy wrote:1 Ice would melt and San Francisco would be flooded2 and life would not exist if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high

so until you present a good reason to accept 1 and reject 2, I have no other option but to assume that you reject 2 simply because you personally don't like the implications.

I can accept both of those, in fact I have stated dozens of times that I accept what the initial conditions of our universe were. You are making the mistake in thinking that the initial conditions were fine-tuned. You still have not demonstrated that. However, this is another statement that makes me think that you are just using fine-tuning interchangeably with initial conditions.

leroy wrote:So as I told you earlier, this is my conclusion,

leroy wrote: these Counterfactuals are enough to convince the majority of experts that the universe is FT, and even you grant some statements that are based on the same type of counterfactuals. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT and you haven provided any good reasons for making such an exception.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As I said, no one is concluding anything based on those counterfactuals. They are used to create hypotheses that are later tested in the real world. You brought up a great example with climate change. Since at least the 60s, scientists have hypothesized that if we release large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, it would start to warm. We have now run the experiment and demonstrated that their hypothesis were correct. Thus, if you want to call your counterfactual a hypothesis, go for it. However, claiming that you can conclude anything from it is something you cannot do. It would also help if you started talking about ways to test your hypothesis, because simply forming one gets us nowhere.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You honestly still have not shown one atheist that accept the universe is fine-tuned. I know you think Hawking does, but that just speaks to your poor reading comprehension. As I said, you have yourself a hypothesis. Now you need to come up with a way to test it. With the other examples you talked about, they gave examples of possible tests for their hypotheses. You have not come close to this step.

Both of those statements (from the post you are supposed to be addressing) address your point adequately.

Why do you insist on asking questions that have already been answered?

leroy wrote:one can stablish that a UFO where caused by aliens, even if you don't know how

How does one establish that an unidentified flying object is caused by aliens?

Nesslig20 wrote:If I am not mistaken, you are the one using the fine tuning argument that includes the assumption that there are two or three options for explaining the fine tuning argument:1. Necessity 2. Chance3. DesignAnd that design is the best option over the others to explain the fine tuning. If you are not willing to defend your notion of a designer (which is not a model, nor does it count as a hypothesis) than you are not willing to defend the fine tuning argument. If a theists is not willing to defend the fine tuning argument, that makes the truth of the title of this topic more obvious.

I am just sharing my opinion, I personally believe that it would be more meaningful to defend design against a hypothesis that you hold, rather than defending it against multiverses which is a hypothesis that non of us accept.

I personally believe that it would be more meaningful to defend things that are not opinion. And I personally believe that you are being dishonest when you are only interested to defend your position if someone brings up an alternative. That is one tactic of pseudoscience. "Here is my position and until some other idea comes along that is demonstrated to be better, MY postion goes unchallenged."No, your position has to be defended even when there is NO alternative.

So are you willing to make your premises of the fine tuning argument that support the conclusion of design. (not a rhetorical question) If you are not, than I rest my case. The fine tuning argument is such a bad argument for theism that a theist is not willing use it.

leroy wrote:

I say that the Multi-verse makes less assumptions than the "explanation" you want to propose

I don't agree, but who cares, a falsified hypothesis is worst than a hypothesis that has not been falsified, regardless of which hypothesis is more parsimonious.

You don't agree, but fails to explain why. I explained why the multi verse makes less assumptions. We have one universe that we know of and no example of a cosmic wizard that can speak anything into existence, thus making the assumption "there are more universes" is less than making the assumption "there is a space wizard".

And you haven't falsified that hypothesis. You have made unwarranted assumptions again as I have pointed out previously.

leroy wrote:

Premise 1 and 2 contradict each other. If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and each posible universe is equally probable, than we obviously not conclude that simpler universe are more abundant. If all possible universes are equally likely, then simple universes are equally likely than complex universes.

there are many possible universes with just 1 star, and few possible universes with many stars........this is what I meant

Okay so premise one now changed from:1. If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and each posible universe is equally probable, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist

changed to this

1 (version 2.0) If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where many possible universes with just 1 star, and few possible universes with many stars, and each posible universe is equally probable, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist.

Of course, still the same assumption that universe with one star is more likely than universes with many stars. How many updates do we need to make until you give up? (this is a rhetorical question).

leroy wrote:

If you change your premise 1 into this:1 If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where every possible universe can exist, and more simpler universe are more likely to exist, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist

ok I accept the change

1 (version 3.0) If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where many possible universes with just 1 star, and few possible universes with many stars, and more simpler universe are more likely to exist, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist.

Second update. Yes I am going to keep track of this, because it is hilarious.

leroy wrote:

This would solve the contradiction. But then I would not agree with the statement that simpler universe like one with only one sun and one earth, are more likely than the one we are in. Unwarranted assumption of probability yet again

we know for the second law of thermodynamics, that small areas of order (low entropy) are more likely than big ones....this is not an assumption, this is something that we know...

entropy ≠ order

Here is an explanation that entropy can actually produce order.

Entropy can have slightly different meanings, one it is that the amount of energy that a system contains that is unable to do work. For example, when you have fuel that burns and the energy that is released makes your car drive, not all the energy that is inside the fuel gets to be used as work for the car. Some disperses into heat.

Systems have a tendency to go towards a state that is more likely to be in. This relates to the previous example since it is more likely for energy to be dispersed rather than all the energy to be used as work for the car. Another more easier example would be the air in your room. There are more ways for air to be dispersed than there are for the air molecules to be clumped together. Once a system reaches a state that is most likely to be in, it has reached maximum entropy (though at the quantum level that is not possible due to the uncertainty principle)

That is the simple definition of entropy, the number of ways that a system can be in, and the system will spontaneously change towards a state that has more likely (there are more ways for it to be in that state, like air being dispersed in your room).

And the early universe was a very small region of low entropy, but it had no structure, no order.

leroy wrote:from sean carol..

You can get a universe like ours that way, but you’re overwhelmingly more likely to get just a single galaxy, or a single planet, or even just a single brain

Sean Caroll's paper wrote:We argue that, under certain plausible assumptions, de Sitter space settles into a quiescent vacuum in which there are no dynamical quantum fluctuations. Such fluctuations require either an evolving microstate, or time-dependent histories of out-of-equilibrium recording devices, which we argue are absent in stationary states. For a massive scalar field in a fixed de Sitter background, the cosmic no-hair theorem implies that the state of the patch approaches the vacuum, where there are no fluctuations. We argue that an analogous conclusion holds whenever a patch of de Sitter is embedded in a larger theory with an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, including semiclassical quantum gravity with false vacua or complementarity in theories with at least one Minkowski vacuum. This reasoning provides an escape from the Boltzmann brain problem in such theories. It also implies that vacuum states do not uptunnel to higher-energy vacua and that perturbations do not decohere while slow-roll inflation occurs, suggesting that eternal inflation is much less common than often supposed. On the other hand, if a de Sitter patch is a closed system with a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, there will be Poincare recurrences and dynamical Boltzmann fluctuations into lower-entropy states. Our analysis does not alter the conventional understanding of the origin of density fluctuations from primordial inflation, since reheating naturally generates a high-entropy environment and leads to decoherence, nor does it affect the existence of non-dynamical vacuum fluctuations such as those that give rise to the Casimir effect.(And also read this https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... ultiverse/)

The Ted talk that I showed here earlier with Sean Carroll also shows him addressing the BBP in which he admittedly speculates that we could be part of a multi verse without resulting in the problem that you propose.

leroy wrote:or to put it this way...a universe with many stars and galaxies can only exist if the initial entropy is very, very low........while a universe with just 1 star could exist even if the entropy is relatively high.........since high entropy is more probable than low entropy, small universes with 1 star are statistically more probable, and therefore more abundant in a multiverse scenario.

Although Sean Carroll addresses that problem that does not falsify the multi verse.

leroy wrote:Roger Penrose did the math and he calculated that the probability of having a universe with 1 star and 1 planet is>1 in 10^600 and the probability of a universe big universe with many stars and galaxies 1 in 10^1230

I can't find the 10^600 calculation anywhere of Roger Penrose (citation needed), I do find many 1 in 10^1230 on many apologetics website (that don't give the calculations ironically). So my question would be, what was the math??

leroy wrote:in a multiverse for every big universe with many stars there are 10^630 universes with 1 star........please take a minute of your precios time and think about how big is the number 10^630

Trying to impress people with huge numbers is a common tactic of the fine tuning argument, but huge numbers are useless without the math that supports it.

leroy wrote:

3 has the same problem. Why are universes that contain life, with hallucinating agents, more abundant (more likely) than those with agents that aren't hallucinating?

No, what I am saying is that there would be more observers that live in a universe with 1 star that hallucinate than observers in big universes with many stars.

How can you conclude that were are hallucinating than? Because it is more likely that we life in a simple universe, we must be hallucinating?

leroy wrote:

This is especially the problem when you have to assume that most universes that contains life are so perfect that even agents that are constantly hallucinating are able to survive. Why aren't universes that are inhospitable to life more abundant, thus life in most universes wouldn't last very long if it was constantly hallucinating and only allow life that are getting reliable information about there surroundings that enables them to survive

first. you don't need agents that are constantly hallucinating, all you need is agents that hallucinate 1 time and for a few seconds

Which we know we are doing.

Perhaps we are Boltzmann brains (joking, mostly).

leroy wrote:second hallucinating distant galaxies and stars does not seem to have any negative effect in survival

So most of the times, they wouldn't be hallucinated and occasionally they would. But how does that result in agents that believe that they are living in the world that they experience for only brief seconds on occasions. In order for us to be agents that live in a simple universe, we have to be hallucinated allot longer than just a few seconds, obviously.

leroy wrote:lets assume that only 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,1%of all the universes with 1 star contain at least 1 agent that hallucinates....even in that case agents that hallucinate would be unimaginably more abundant than observers in big universes like ours.

If it hallucinates for only brief moments, than they wouldn't believe they are in the universe they are hallucinating.

leroy wrote:

First, by your argument, I don't have to accept that I am a BB. I have to accept that I am more likely a BB

well, no because you are not a multiverse theorist.

If I was a multiverse theorists, I have to accept that I am more likely a BB.

leroy wrote:

. But still I don't accept the implications that you believe. What if universes like our own are more likely and Boltzmann brains (or hallucinating agents) are unlikely? You haven't done any calculations to indicate that this is an implication, so I don't accept it.

again, the second law confirms this, it is more likely to have small ares with low entropy than big ones......if you have a swimming pool with average temperature of 20 degrees, it would be more likely to find a small drop of water at 99 degrees than to find a complete gallon.

You proposed when I pointed out that hallucinating agents (that are experiencing a completely different reality then they ar in) are not likely to survive. Thus with this in mind, hallucinating agents are not very likely to persist.

leroy wrote:

Non sequitur, even if I accept that I am more likely a BB or even definitely a BB. That doesn't mean the multi verse proposition is wrong. If I am hallucinating, that doesn't mean the multiverse is not true. These are not incompatible.

no one is saying that the BBP proves that multiverses do not exist........what the BBP proves is that multiverse is not a valid explanation for our observations of us living in a big, ordered and FT universe.

I don't agree we are living in an ordered universe, nor that it is fine tuned. And I don't see that the BBP proves that multiverse is not valid (at least not how Sean Carroll is explaining it).

leroy wrote:

An explanation MUST contain the HOW, because the HOW is the explanation.

given your very particular definitions of explanation and phenomena then maybe I agree...

Finally. Or are you going into semantics.

leroy wrote:however one can state that the cause of X is Y even if you don't know how Y did it.

Now you have replaced "explanation" with "cause" in order to avoid the objection. Which is dishonest.

leroy wrote:I already presented the reasons why this is true. feel free to pretend to disagree.....

I don't pretend, you really have not presented the reasons why this is true. I have challenged you to explain the premises for the fine tuning argument that supports the conclusion of a design and you dodged that challenge.

leroy wrote:

You said that the constants were fine tuned to be life permitting, thus you argue that the universe is fined tuned for life, which is not by observation. Why isn't the universe fine tuned for making black holes, supernovae, or just the existence of hydrogen itself and life is merely a by product. But that is what you are now saying in a sense, that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of all these things there are not life, but even the fine tuning for the purpose of stars, atoms, etc still results in the laughable inefficient production of and the conditions that barely allow life to exist.

again that objection is based on a straw man.

No it is not. The fine tuning argument clearly states that the universe is fine tuned FOR life. YOU are now saying it is NOT for life, but instead all these other things. You are arguing for a different fine tuning argument that I am used to. Thus I ask you, explain your premises.

leroy wrote:the thing is that we all have some observations....for example we can observe that we live in a universe with low entropy, we know that low entropy states are unlikely to occur by chance, and we know that life could only exist if the entropy is low. this is what we mean by fine tuned for life.

So not constants, now it is entropy?? Low entropy is a relative statement. We are living in a low entropy when it comes to the state of the further, but high when compared to the state of the universe it used to be. We are living in a universe were the entropy is alway increasing, not a universe with low entropy (which again is relative).

leroy wrote:there are many states and different combinations in which particles can exist but only few of this possible states would be low entropy states, life can only exist if the entropy is low meaning that the life permitting rage is narrow. this only concerns the low entropy of the universe, there are around 25 other analogous values.

Life cannot exists when entropy is only low (there are other factors to be considers) If the entropy of the universe is zero, life woud be impossible. Life as we know it can only exists when there is entropy and it is always increasing.

So in order for life to exists, a universe with low entropy, must increase its entropy.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." Charles Darwin

It is statistically more likely to have high entropy than low entropy.......agree?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

Let us see the statistics. The last time you tried to deal with math was hilarious

?

No sir, at this point you are just trolling, you don´t disagree with the statement.

Correct. Just like in his opinion, fine-tuning does not matter, because intelligent life could exist without it. Cannot have one opinion without the other. His opinions would also be different from what he actually knows to be true

no sir, SH grants that the universe is FT, (using the definition we already agreed with), you don't disagree with this, you are just being a troll.

because intelligent life could exist without it

he is simply proposing a possibility, he doesn't claim to support that possibility, you know it, you don't disagree with me, but you are just being a troll

My logic? I think much like free will, determinism, evolution, and phenomena, logic is another word that you do not know the proper definition

the definitions that I have provided, are consistent with definitions used everywhere, including reliable sources, this forum is the only place where will and free will have a different definition, where phenome is something that is necessarily observable, and where the expression by your logic has no meaning.

you know this, you don't disagree with me, but you are just being a troll.

as for determinism and evolution I don't think I have ever provided a definition that you disagree with

You are the one that is saying gravity can be different

No, I haven't affirmed that gravity could have been different, I am personally fine with the idea that gravity could have not been different. Chance theorist (multiverse theorist for example) are the ones who affirm that gravity could have been different. There are plenty of multiverse theorist in this forum, why don't you ask them?

FT does not imply that gravity could have been different, I have told you this multiple times, but for some reason you keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. there is nothing in the definition of FT, that implies that gravity could have been different, you know this, you agree with this, but you are just trolling.

. You are the one that is saying that changing gravity will lead to differences because all other initial conditions will stay the same

and you are the one who is saying that everything will remain the same if CO2 increases......maybe an excess in CO2 will trigger a mechanism caused my an unknown natural process that would cool the planet and compensate the effect of global warming caused by CO2.

besides you personally don't believe that changing gravity would change everything else in the exact proportion needed to balance everything a end up with a life permitting universe anyway ......you are just being a troll.

This is simple projection on your part. Again, you think a fundamental force of the universe can be different, and you are basing a whole argument off of that. I keep asking you to demonstrate that, and you retort by telling me to prove you wrong. Again, I accept reality, while you would rather deal with imagination.

No I don't think that a fundamental force could be different, but I am open to that possibility..... ...as a theist I would be more than happy if you could show that these forces could have not been different, because you would provide an other devastating argument against chance hypothesis.

This is the second time I have seen you do this, but it seems like all you are doing is using the term fine-tuning to refer to the initial conditions of our universe. If you want to say fine-tuning means the initial conditions than just say it. However, that would make it meaningless to the point you are trying to prove with it.

well we already agreed with a definition of FT, I have no idea on what do you mean by initial conditions, if initial conditions have the same definition than FT the I would agree to use that term interchangeably, if not, well explain the difference.

leroy wrote:1 Ice would melt and San Francisco would be flooded2 and life would not exist if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high

so until you present a good reason to accept 1 and reject 2, I have no other option but to assume that you reject 2 simply because you personally don't like the implications.

can accept both of those, in fact I have stated dozens of times that I accept what the initial conditions of our universe were. You are making the mistake in thinking that the initial conditions were fine-tuned. You still have not demonstrated that. However, this is another statement that makes me think that you are just using fine-tuning interchangeably with initial conditions

ok so all you a have to do is accept an other uncontroversial statement, high entropy is statistically more probable than low entropy

if you accept life would not exist if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high andhigh entropy is statistically more probable than low entropy

you automatically are accepting that the universe is FT.

I will change my previous conclusion from thisleroy wrote:

these Counterfactuals are enough to convince the majority of experts that the universe is FT, and even you grant some statements that are based on the same type of counterfactuals. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT and you haven provided any good reasons for making such an exception

to this....you are just being a troll, you don't disagree with any of the statements made in this conversation. you are just trolling.

PSI wont provide evidence for this statement

high entropy is statistically more probable than low entropy

unless you clearly and unambiguously manifest your disagreement with that uncontroversial statement. up to this point my theory is that you don't disagree with this statement, you are just pretending to do so because you are a troll (maybe 12yo) who is just being obnoxious for fun.

It is statistically more likely to have high entropy than low entropy.......agree?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[

Let us see the statistics. The last time you tried to deal with math was hilarious

?

No sir, at this point you are just trolling, you don´t disagree with the statement.

Oh, look at that. Dandan/Leroy is now a mind reader. To bad he is wrong. I do disagree, which is why I would love for you to back what you are saying with the actual math. However, this is a unique attempt at trying to get out of holding a burden.

leroy wrote:

Correct. Just like in his opinion, fine-tuning does not matter, because intelligent life could exist without it. Cannot have one opinion without the other. His opinions would also be different from what he actually knows to be true

no sir, SH grants that the universe is FT, (using the definition we already agreed with), you don't disagree with this, you are just being a troll.

If he agrees with fine-tuning, than he also agrees it is not needed for intelligent life. Go back and read the whole paragraph (and not just the part you quoted).

leroy wrote:

because intelligent life could exist without it

he is simply proposing a possibility, he doesn't claim to support that possibility, you know it, you don't disagree with me, but you are just being a troll

Just like what he said about fine-tuning. You cannot have him agreeing with one without the other. Again, go back and read the whole paragraph.

leroy wrote:

My logic? I think much like free will, determinism, evolution, and phenomena, logic is another word that you do not know the proper definition

the definitions that I have provided, are consistent with definitions used everywhere, including reliable sources, this forum is the only place where will and free will have a different definition, where phenome is something that is necessarily observable, and where the expression by your logic has no meaning.

Strange how you would say free will and will are still the same after MarsCydonia demonstrated that you quote-mined all your definitions. And the only reason by your logic has no meaning in this case is because you accused me of coming up with outlandish things, while being the one that presented an argument that hinged on one outlandish thing being the case. Basically, I am pointing out that you are simply projecting your faults onto me.

leroy wrote:you know this, you don't disagree with me, but you are just being a troll.

It is starting to look like you need to get a refund on those mind reading classes. I do disagree with you.

leroy wrote:as for determinism and evolution I don't think I have ever provided a definition that you disagree with

No, I haven't affirmed that gravity could have been different, I am personally fine with the idea that gravity could have not been different. Chance theorist (multiverse theorist for example) are the ones who affirm that gravity could have been different. There are plenty of multiverse theorist in this forum, why don't you ask them?

leroy on February 2nd wrote:all you have to do is imagine a world where the force of gravity is 1% stronger, one can use simulations and see the result.

leroy on February 2nd wrote:one can perfectly imagine (or make a simulation) on what would happen is gravity where stronger.

leroy on February 3rd wrote:the only point that I am making is that you don't need to have other universes in order to determine what would happen if gravity would have been 1% stronger................agree?

Shall I go on demonstrating that you are the one asking us to pretend that gravity could be different? If you are not arguing for it, than why are you always talking about it?

leroy wrote:FT does not imply that gravity could have been different, I have told you this multiple times, but for some reason you keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. there is nothing in the definition of FT, that implies that gravity could have been different, you know this, you agree with this, but you are just trolling.

Than why are you always talking about it being different? Who is the one that first brought this up?

leroy on October 11th, 2016 wrote:for example if gravity would have been slightly stronger, then whole universe would have collapsed in to a black hole,

Oh look! It was you! Amazing that you will not stop bringing it up since fine-tuning does not imply it. Guess we can drop it, right?

leroy wrote:

. You are the one that is saying that changing gravity will lead to differences because all other initial conditions will stay the same

and you are the one who is saying that everything will remain the same if CO2 increases......maybe an excess in CO2 will trigger a mechanism caused my an unknown natural process that would cool the planet and compensate the effect of global warming caused by CO2.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You are right. They did not know that. That is why it was just a hypothesis. However, we have ran the experiment and showed that it does. The hilarious thing about this is that those early scientists were in part wrong about how much CO2 was needed to start to heat the atmosphere, because they were not counting on the oceans [absorbing] carbon and heat. See how hypotheses need to be tested in the real world before one can have any sort of certainty?

Thanks for once again demonstrating that you are only skimming my posts.

leroy wrote:besides you personally don't believe that changing gravity would change everything else in the exact proportion needed to balance everything a end up with a life permitting universe anyway ......you are just being a troll.

You are a terrible mind reader.

leroy wrote:

This is simple projection on your part. Again, you think a fundamental force of the universe can be different, and you are basing a whole argument off of that. I keep asking you to demonstrate that, and you retort by telling me to prove you wrong. Again, I accept reality, while you would rather deal with imagination.

No I don't think that a fundamental force could be different, but I am open to that possibility..... ...as a theist I would be more than happy if you could show that these forces could have not been different, because you would provide an other devastating argument against chance hypothesis.

I already demonstrated above that you are the only one that has been talking about gravity being different. It was in fact part of your opening gambit. Stop acting as if it is not a key part of your argument.

leroy wrote:

This is the second time I have seen you do this, but it seems like all you are doing is using the term fine-tuning to refer to the initial conditions of our universe. If you want to say fine-tuning means the initial conditions than just say it. However, that would make it meaningless to the point you are trying to prove with it.

well we already agreed with a definition of FT, I have no idea on what do you mean by initial conditions, if initial conditions have the same definition than FT the I would agree to use that term interchangeably, if not, well explain the difference.

Basically, I have been using initial conditions to reference what is believed to be what our universe was like at its beginning. It is not a formal definition. Fine-tuning, as we finally agreed, is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood. Thus, I would say the difference is that you believe that you know why the initial conditions of our universe were the way they were, whereas I do not. That also means, that if you know why they were the way they were you should have evidence for that claim.

leroy wrote:

leroy wrote:1 Ice would melt and San Francisco would be flooded2 and life would not exist if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high

so until you present a good reason to accept 1 and reject 2, I have no other option but to assume that you reject 2 simply because you personally don't like the implications.

can accept both of those, in fact I have stated dozens of times that I accept what the initial conditions of our universe were. You are making the mistake in thinking that the initial conditions were fine-tuned. You still have not demonstrated that. However, this is another statement that makes me think that you are just using fine-tuning interchangeably with initial conditions

ok so all you a have to do is accept an other uncontroversial statement, high entropy is statistically more probable than low entropy

Citation needed.

leroy wrote:if you accept life would not exist if the initial entropy of the universe would have been high andhigh entropy is statistically more probable than low entropy

you automatically are accepting that the universe is FT.

You are skipping a step there. Just because something is statistically unlikely does not mean it is impossible. Statistically unlikely events can happen without outside help. Thus, even if you were able to demonstrate that high entropy states were more probable, you would still need to demonstrate that the low entropy of the early observable universe was placed that way to make your point. Otherwise, how would you know?

these Counterfactuals are enough to convince the majority of experts that the universe is FT, and even you grant some statements that are based on the same type of counterfactuals. you are making an arbitrary exception with FT and you haven provided any good reasons for making such an exception

to this....you are just being a troll, you don't disagree with any of the statements made in this conversation. you are just trolling.

You really need to get a refund from that mind reading class.

leroy wrote:PSI wont provide evidence for this statement

high entropy is statistically more probable than low entropy

unless you clearly and unambiguously manifest your disagreement with that uncontroversial statement. up to this point my theory is that you don't disagree with this statement, you are just pretending to do so because you are a troll (maybe 12yo) who is just being obnoxious for fun.

All your insults aside, claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence. If you do not want to provide evidence for your claims, than this conversation is done and you failed to prove your point. It is as simple as that. Honestly, since you are making a positive claim, that alone is enough for an honest person to want to provide evidence to back it up. It does say a lot about you, when you whine so much about having to provide evidence for your claims.

1 (version 3.0) If we grant the multiverse hypothesis where many possible universes with just 1 star, and few possible universes with many stars, and more simpler universe are more likely to exist, there would be life permitting universes that would be much simpler (with more entropy) than our universe. For example life permitting universes with 1 star and 1 planet would exist.

Second update. Yes I am going to keep track of this, because it is hilarious.

I don't see any difference between versions 1 2 and 3, feel free to use any of them

[entropy ≠ order

stop playing word games, sure the term order has many definitions, it may or may not mean low entropy.

but ok, I will use the term low entropy

Systems have a tendency to go towards a state that is more likely to be in. This relates to the previous example since it is more likely for energy to be dispersed rather than all the energy to be used as work for the car. Another more easier example would be the air in your room. There are more ways for air to be dispersed than there are for the air molecules to be clumped together. Once a system reaches a state that is most likely to be in, it has reached maximum entropy (though at the quantum level that is not possible due to the uncertainty principle)

yes, we agree with this.

Systems have a tendency to go towards a state that is more likely to be in

however HWN would disagree with this statement.

And the early universe was a very small region of low entropy, but it had no structure, no order.

ok so we agree on that the entropy was low

You don't agree, but fails to explain why. I explained why the multi verse makes less assumptions. We have one universe that we know of and no example of a cosmic wizard that can speak anything into existence, thus making the assumption "there are more universes" is less than making the assumption "there is a space wizard".

The multiverse theory makes at least 2 controversial assumptions1 that there is potentially infinite number of universes (or a veeeeery large number of universes).....proving that there are more universes is not enough.

2 that the values of the fundamental constants and initial conditions where different in each universe.......in other words you are assuming that gravity could have been different.........By HWN logic this is enough to drop the argument. but hopefully we both agree that HWN is wrong.

thus making the assumption "there are more universes" is less than making the assumption "there is a space wizard

well why? we know that there is a universe and we know that intelligent designers exist.

you are assuming that there are other types of universes, I am assuming that there is different type of designer.

both, multiverse and design are equally unparsimonius.

I looked at that, it is a quote mine

the reason why I provided the quote was to show that small areas of low entropy are more likely than big areas of low entropy...........so do you agree with me and with sean carol on this particular statement?

The Ted talk that I showed here earlier with Sean Carroll also shows him addressing the BBP in which he admittedly speculates that we could be part of a multi verse without resulting in the problem that you propose

According to Sean Caron....

If there where no observers during inflation, then fluctuations would have not occurred, therefore there wouldn't be a potentially infinite number of universes therefore no BBP.

his view allows for the existence of odder universes but not a grate number of them, the multiverse hypothesis requires the existence of a very very very large number of universes I order to explain the FT of the universe.

so if we grant SC s view then the multiverse hypothesis would be falsified, if we reject SC s view the BBP would disprove the multiverse hypothesis. so in any case the multiverse hypothesis is falsified, at least the kind of multiverse needed to explain the FT of the universe.

Although Sean Carroll addresses that problem that does not falsify the multi verse

.

yes it falsifies the idea of a grate number of universes, required to explain the FT of the universe.

I can't find the 10^600 calculation anywhere of Roger Penrose (citation needed), I do find many 1 in 10^1230 on many apologetics website (that don't give the calculations ironically). So my question would be, what was the math??

but don't worry, you don't have to understand or even agree with the math, all yo have to do is agree on that it is more probable to have a small area of low entropy than a big one. .......so do you agree?

How can you conclude that were are hallucinating than? Because it is more likely that we life in a simple universe, we must be hallucinating?

yes that is an implication of the multiverse theory, since none of us supports the multiverse theory, we don't have to accept such implication..

remember my analogy, if you observe yourself winning the lottery 100 times in a row it would be more likely that this observation is just a hallucination, than an event that happened by chance.

pretend that you observe yourself walking un water or walking through a solid wall, pretend that you observe a monkey typing a complete novel, pretend that you see a talking dog, these events are extremely unlikely but possible, according to the multiverse hypothesis this events happen once in a while in some universes, however there are also many universes where agents hallucinate this stuff, this universes are vastly more abundant, so if you find yourself observing any of this stuff, it would be valid to conclude that you are hallucinating (dreaming)

living in a universe with many stars and galaxies (low entropy) is as improbable as it is to walk trough a wall or walk on water, therefore if you observe living in a universe with low entropy it would be almost certain that you are just hallucinating or dreaming.

of course this only applies if you believe that the low entropy of the universe is a product of chance. If you think that the low entropy of the universe is caused by a designer or by an unknown natural mechanism, then this paradox does not apply.

So most of the times, they wouldn't be hallucinated and occasionally they would. But how does that result in agents that believe that they are living in the world that they experience for only brief seconds on occasions. In order for us to be agents that live in a simple universe, we have to be hallucinated allot longer than just a few seconds, obviously

well yes they would believe it for those few seconds. after a few seconds the agent might wake up and wonder about their crazy dream where they where living in a universe with many stars.

the only thing that I am saying is that it is possible to hallucinate stars and galaxies that do not excist.............so do you agree?

a brief summery.The BBP is based on several uncontroversial premises

0 the multiverse theory is true

1 according to the multiverse hypothesis, every possible scenario is real in some universe.

2 there is a possible scenario where the entropy is low and the universe has many stars and galaxies

3 there is a possible scenario where the entropy is higher and only 1 (or few) stars exist.

4 we know form the second law that 3 is much more probable than 2, therefore there would be vastly more universes like 3 than universes than 2

5 there is a possible scenario where agents hallucinate stars that do not exist.

6 universes with 3 and 5 are vastly more abundant than universes with 2

therefore if you observe a universe with many stars you should conclude that this stars are just an hallucination.

If you accept all these premises then you are forced to accept the conclusion, I would deny premise 0 since it is the only controversial premise,

you have to options

1 deny 1 premise

2 accept the conclusion.

since premise 0 is the only controversial premise It is reasonable to reject it and avoid the conclusion.

How can you conclude that were are hallucinating than? Because it is more likely that we life in a simple universe, we must be hallucinating?

well yes, if you walk trough a wall, it would make sense to say that you are hallucinating, since it is very unlikely to walk trough a wall.

You proposed when I pointed out that hallucinating agents (that are experiencing a completely different reality then they ar in) are not likely to survive. Thus with this in mind, hallucinating agents are not very likely to persist

1 no one is saying that all the agents of the universe are hallucinating (maybe just 1 individual who lives in a psychiatric hospital is hallucinating)

2 no one is saying that they are hallucinating all the time.

3 well most Theist claim to have had an experience with God (witch according to you is a hallucination or a delusion) and this doesn't seem to have negative selective effects.

I don't agree we are living in an ordered universe, nor that it is fine tuned

word games.... but you do agree that we live in a universe with low entropy and you agree that many stars and galaxies can only exist if the entropy is low you agree that low entropy is more probable than high entropy and you agree that a universe with 1 star could exist if entropy is relatively high

this is what I mean with FT, not your straw man understanding of the concept.

Now you have replaced "explanation" with "cause" in order to avoid the objection. Which is dishonest.

it is not dishonest, I am just pointing the fact that one does not need to know the HOW in order to establish a cause.

No, well unless you can explain how the fine tuner fine tuned the universe and show the accuracy of your explanation just like any scientist demands of someone who is proposing an explanation of phenomenon X.

in your objection you seem to be saying that one needs to know the HOW in order to stablish that a designer is the cause.......given that this is not the case, your objection falls,

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[All your insults aside, claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence. If you do not want to provide evidence for your claims, than this conversation is done and you failed to prove your point. It is as simple as that. Honestly, since you are making a positive claim, that alone is enough for an honest person to want to provide evidence to back it up. It does say a lot about you, when you whine so much about having to provide evidence for your claims.

Well you have to understand that I was in a hard situation, I had to decide form these 2 alternatives

1 You deny the second law of thermodynamics

2 you are just trolling.

My best guess was option 2, since option 1 seemed hard to believe.

Oh, look at that. Dandan/Leroy is now a mind reader. To bad he is wrong. I do disagree, which is why I would love for you to back what you are saying with the actual math. However, this is a unique attempt at trying to get out of holding a burden.

so you disagree with the second law of thermodynamics,........ your fanatism and you conviction to disagree with theist at all cost lead you to a situation where you have to deny a well understood and uncontroversial law of thermodynamics.

just for the record, this is the statement that you reject which implies that you deny the second law

It is statistically more likely to have high entropy than low entropy.......agree?

here is source affirming that high entropy is more probable than low entropy

The reason systems tend toward higher entropy states is simply that those states are more probable.

In statistical mechanics, Boltzmann's equation is a probability equation relating the entropy S of an ideal gas to the quantity W, the number of real microstates corresponding to the gas' macrostate:S = kB ln W where kB is the Boltzmann constant (also written with k), }

Another more easier example would be the air in your room. There are more ways for air to be dispersed (high entropy*) than there are for the air molecules to be clumped together (low entropy*). Once a system reaches a state that is most likely to be in, it has reached maximum entropy (though at the quantum level that is not possible due to the uncertainty principle)

* added by me for clarificación and context

If Nessling20 is correct when molecules to be clumped together, W would be smaller, if W is smaller then S (entropy) would also be smaller

according to Nessling20 air molecules to be clumped together, (low entropy) is more probable than air spread homogenously throughout the room (high entropy)

so if at this point I haven't convince you that low entropy is less probable than high entropy why don't you ask Nessling20 for some evidence for his statements, maybe he is better than me in explaining and justifying statements.

thanks for quoting me from previous comments

leroy on February 2nd wrote:all you have to do is imagine a world where the force of gravity is 1% stronger, one can use simulations and see the result.

leroy on February 2nd wrote:one can perfectly imagine (or make a simulation) on what would happen is gravity where stronger.

leroy on February 3rd wrote:the only point that I am making is that you don't need to have other universes in order to determine what would happen if gravity would have been 1% stronger................agree?

everyone can note that I never affirmed that gravity could have been different. my only affirmation was that it is possible to make a simulation of what would happen if we change these values. This does not imply that you can do the same in the real world.

Maybe gravity could have been different, maybe not, I am fine with both options.

Basically, I have been using initial conditions to reference what is believed to be what our universe was like at its beginning. It is not a formal definition. Fine-tuning, as we finally agreed, is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood. Thus, I would say the difference is that you believe that you know why the initial conditions of our universe were the way they were, whereas I do not. That also means, that if you know why they were the way they were you should have evidence for that claim

based on the definition of FT that we agreed with, one doesn't need to answer the WHY, in order to conclude that the universe is FT.

You are skipping a step there. Just because something is statistically unlikely does not mean it is impossible

granted, but statistically unlikely means (or implies) a narrow rage

you already agree that life can only exist if the entropy is low

if you grant that it is statistically unlikely to have low entropy you would grant that live can only exist within a narrow rage of possibilities. or in other words, you would agree with FT.

but don't worry we all know that you don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics, so you don't have to accept this statement.

Systems have a tendency to go towards a state that is more likely to be in

however HWN would disagree with this statement.

When did I ever disagree with that? Citation please.

leroy wrote:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[All your insults aside, claims made without evidence can and will be dismissed without evidence. If you do not want to provide evidence for your claims, than this conversation is done and you failed to prove your point. It is as simple as that. Honestly, since you are making a positive claim, that alone is enough for an honest person to want to provide evidence to back it up. It does say a lot about you, when you whine so much about having to provide evidence for your claims.

Well you have to understand that I was in a hard situation, I had to decide form these 2 alternatives

1 You deny the second law of thermodynamics

2 you are just trolling.

My best guess was option 2, since option 1 seemed hard to believe.

How am I denying the second law of thermodynamics? Are you making a non-sequitur to get out of meeting your burden?

leroy wrote:

Oh, look at that. Dandan/Leroy is now a mind reader. To bad he is wrong. I do disagree, which is why I would love for you to back what you are saying with the actual math. However, this is a unique attempt at trying to get out of holding a burden.

so you disagree with the second law of thermodynamics,........ your fanatism and you conviction to disagree with theist at all cost lead you to a situation where you have to deny a well understood and uncontroversial law of thermodynamics.

How am I denying the second law of thermodynamics?

leroy wrote:just for the record, this is the statement that you reject which implies that you deny the second law

It is statistically more likely to have high entropy than low entropy.......agree?

Exactly. Show the statistics that proves that statement. Asking for evidence is not denying anything. It is simply pointing out that you have a burden.

leroy wrote:here is source affirming that high entropy is more probable than low entropy

The reason systems tend toward higher entropy states is simply that those states are more probable.

In statistical mechanics, Boltzmann's equation is a probability equation relating the entropy S of an ideal gas to the quantity W, the number of real microstates corresponding to the gas' macrostate:S = kB ln W where kB is the Boltzmann constant (also written with k), }

Look at that, dandan/leroy finally cited a source that agreed with this babble. I am impressed. Now one wonders why he could not have done that the first time I asked him, instead of whining.

leroy wrote:do you what an example?lets see is Nessling20 can help

Another more easier example would be the air in your room. There are more ways for air to be dispersed (high entropy*) than there are for the air molecules to be clumped together (low entropy*). Once a system reaches a state that is most likely to be in, it has reached maximum entropy (though at the quantum level that is not possible due to the uncertainty principle)

* added by me for clarificación and context

If Nessling20 is correct when molecules to be clumped together, W would be smaller, if W is smaller then S (entropy) would also be smaller

according to Nessling20 air molecules to be clumped together, (low entropy) is more probable than air spread homogenously throughout the room (high entropy)

Again, bravo for finally backing up one of your claims. One wonders why you could not just do this the first time I asked.

leroy wrote:so if at this point I haven't convince you that low entropy is less probable than high entropy why don't you ask Nessling20 for some evidence for his statements, maybe he is better than me in explaining and justifying statements.

He is better than you. That is because he cares to be correct, while you care to just defend your dogma.

leroy wrote:thanks for quoting me from previous comments

leroy on February 2nd wrote:all you have to do is imagine a world where the force of gravity is 1% stronger, one can use simulations and see the result.

leroy on February 2nd wrote:one can perfectly imagine (or make a simulation) on what would happen is gravity where stronger.

leroy on February 3rd wrote:the only point that I am making is that you don't need to have other universes in order to determine what would happen if gravity would have been 1% stronger................agree?

everyone can note that I never affirmed that gravity could have been different. my only affirmation was that it is possible to make a simulation of what would happen if we change these values. This does not imply that you can do the same in the real world.

Maybe gravity could have been different, maybe not, I am fine with both options.

Thus, you, once again, readily admit that your whole argument is based on nothing but a counterfactual conditional, one that you do not even agree is possible. Again, you were the only one that kept bringing this up. If it was not such a big deal, as you seem to be saying now, than why did you repeatedly bring it up for nearly half a year? No one else talked about gravity being different but you.

leroy wrote:

Basically, I have been using initial conditions to reference what is believed to be what our universe was like at its beginning. It is not a formal definition. Fine-tuning, as we finally agreed, is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood. Thus, I would say the difference is that you believe that you know why the initial conditions of our universe were the way they were, whereas I do not. That also means, that if you know why they were the way they were you should have evidence for that claim

based on the definition of FT that we agreed with, one doesn't need to answer the WHY, in order to conclude that the universe is FT.

If we do not need to answer the why, than why is it an argument for the existence of a deity? You are right that when we define tine-tuning to just mean the initial conditions of the universe we observe, than we do not need to have a why, it would just be an observation. However, you have been trying to argue for a version of the Fine-Tuning Argument, thus you must know the why or else what are you arguing for? That the initial conditions were what we see? Thus, if you want to say fine-tuning is synonymous with the initial conditions, be my guest. However, the moment you try to argue The Fine-Tuning Argument, you are inherently saying you know the why.

leroy wrote:

You are skipping a step there. Just because something is statistically unlikely does not mean it is impossible

granted, but statistically unlikely means (or implies) a narrow rage

Irrelevant to the point I was making. You are trying to claim this low statistical likelihood is meaningful. This goes to the difference between acknowledging the initial conditions and being able to explain why they are like that. You, by invoking a Fine-Tuning Argument, are inherently claiming that you know why the initial conditions were the way they were. Now provide your evidence for that.

leroy wrote:you already agree that life can only exist if the entropy is low

Life as we know it. You still have not shown this to be the case across the board (and I do not know how anyone could).

leroy wrote:if you grant that it is statistically unlikely to have low entropy you would grant that live can only exist within a narrow rage of possibilities. or in other words, you would agree with FT.

Again, I have never denied what the initial conditions were for our observable universe. You are the one that is claiming that those initial conditions mean something beyond what we observe. Whenever you are ready to provide your evidence for that, I will look at it.

leroy wrote:but don't worry we all know that you don't believe in the second law of thermodynamics, so you don't have to accept this statement.

I do disagree, which is why I would love for you to back what you are saying with the actual math. However, this is a unique attempt at trying to get out of holding a burden.

to be honest, I am not sure if you disagreed with the statement, or if you where just trolling, but who cares, the thing is that we both agree with this

it is statistically unlikely to have low entropy

...

Thus, you, once again, readily admit that your whole argument is based on nothing but a counterfactual conditional, one that you do not even agree is possible. Again, you were the only one that kept bringing this up. If it was not such a big deal, as you seem to be saying now, than why did you repeatedly bring it up for nearly half a year? No one else talked about gravity being different but you.

Yes, the argument is based on a a counterfactual conditional, the problem is that you seem to believe that arguments based counterfactuals are invalid, even though many scientific facts that you accept are determined based on counterfactuals.

there are at least 2 probabilities1 the value of the force of gravity was given by a stochastic mechanism (the value could have been different)2 the value of the force of gravity was determined by a deterministic mechanism, (the value could have not been different)

the point that I am making is that it doesn't matter which of the 2 alternatives is true, the FT condition of the universe is not dependent on which one is true. There is nothing in the definition of FT that implies that 1 has to be true.

the reason why it is said that gravity is FT for life is because in order to have live gravity needs to have a very specific value, the reason why we know this is because of all the counterfactuals (simulations, models etc.) that have been done ...........weather if this value is given by deterministic or stochastic mechanisms is irrelevant.

If we do not need to answer the why, than why is it an argument for the existence of a deity? You are right that when we define tine-tuning to just mean the initial conditions of the universe we observe, than we do not need to have a why, it would just be an observation. However, you have been trying to argue for a version of the Fine-Tuning Argument, thus you must know the why or else what are you arguing for? That the initial conditions were what we see? Thus, if you want to say fine-tuning is synonymous with the initial conditions, be my guest. However, the moment you try to argue The Fine-Tuning Argument, you are inherently saying you know the why

First, to me (unless you clarify)

the term Finely Tuned is an adjetive

and the term Initial Conditions is a Noun

therefore these 2 terms can not be used interchangeable, and can not be synonymous, but we already agreed with a definition of FT, so why are you adding an other term?

Secondthe why question is very important, but we haven't get there yet.

these 2 questions are independent. 1 Is the universe FT?

2 Why is the universe FT?

since we haven't agreed with 1, question 2 remains silent.

since you believe that counterfactuals most be rejected by default, and since I have nothing else to offer but counterfactuals, I guess we are stocked with question 1

Irrelevant to the point I was making. You are trying to claim this low statistical likelihood is meaningful. This goes to the difference between acknowledging the initial conditions and being able to explain why they are like that. You, by invoking a Fine-Tuning Argument, are inherently claiming that you know why the initial conditions were the way they were. Now provide your evidence for that

the low statistical likelihood is meaningful because it implies a narrow rage.....

to say that the initial entropy of the universe was FT implies 2 things

1 that life (as we know it) could have only exist if the initial entropy was low

2 it is statistically unlikely to have low entropy (narrow rage)

if you grant these 2 you would grant that the initial entropy was FT

after you grant this we could explore the WHY......

maybe we where just lucky

maybe the low entropy was caused by an unknown natural mechanism

maybe a designer did it.

but sadly we will never explore the WHY question, because you still deny that the universe is FT, and I have no evidence to offer except for those counterfactuals, ......this counterfactuals are good enough to convince the majority of experts, but for some reason they are not good enough to convince you.

"events with a zero probability happen all the time"

Last edited by leroy on Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I do disagree, which is why I would love for you to back what you are saying with the actual math. However, this is a unique attempt at trying to get out of holding a burden.

That quote has nothing to do with "Systems have a tendency to go towards a state that is more likely to be in", which is what you said I would disagree with.

leroy wrote:to be honest, I am not sure if you disagreed with the statement, or if you where just trolling, but who cares, the thing is that we both agree with this

it is statistically unlikely to have low entropy

Correct. You finally provided a citation that agreed with your claim. I am proud, you are making progress.

leroy wrote:

Thus, you, once again, readily admit that your whole argument is based on nothing but a counterfactual conditional, one that you do not even agree is possible. Again, you were the only one that kept bringing this up. If it was not such a big deal, as you seem to be saying now, than why did you repeatedly bring it up for nearly half a year? No one else talked about gravity being different but you.

Yes, the argument is based on a a counterfactual conditional, the problem is that you seem to believe that arguments based counterfactuals are invalid, even though many scientific facts that you accept are determined based on counterfactuals.

Are you going to talk about CO2 again, and ignore everything that I said about it? Like how they proposed how to test if their hypothesis were right, and how the warming they thought they would see initially did not happen because of the ocean, thus explaining why testing is so important and if you cannot test it, than you actually do not know?

leroy wrote:there are at least 2 probabilities1 the value of the force of gravity was given by a stochastic mechanism (the value could have been different)2 the value of the force of gravity was determined by a deterministic mechanism, (the value could have not been different)

Since we both already agreed that we do not think gravity could be different, why are you once again talking about it?

leroy wrote:the point that I am making is that it doesn't matter which of the 2 alternatives is true, the FT condition of the universe is not dependent on which one is true. There is nothing in the definition of FT that implies that 1 has to be true.

Correct, since we agreed that when you say fine-tuning, you are just referencing the initial conditions of our universe. This is why the why seems to be the key part of the Fine-Tuning Argument. Without, one is just pointing at things and saying they are fine-tuned.

leroy wrote:the reason why it is said that gravity is FT for life is because in order to have live gravity needs to have a very specific value, the reason why we know this is because of all the counterfactuals (simulations, models etc.) that have been done ...........weather if this value is given by deterministic or stochastic mechanisms is irrelevant.

Again, you do not know that. I keep asking you to demonstrate this, and you keep asking me to use my imagination. At best, it could be said that we believe this to be the case, but until you come up with a way to test this, you cannot say you know this to be the case. Since you do not know it to be the case, you cannot use it as evidence for anything.

leroy wrote:

If we do not need to answer the why, than why is it an argument for the existence of a deity? You are right that when we define fine-tuning to just mean the initial conditions of the universe we observe, than we do not need to have a why, it would just be an observation. However, you have been trying to argue for a version of the Fine-Tuning Argument, thus you must know the why or else what are you arguing for? That the initial conditions were what we see? Thus, if you want to say fine-tuning is synonymous with the initial conditions, be my guest. However, the moment you try to argue The Fine-Tuning Argument, you are inherently saying you know the why

First, to me (unless you clarify)

the term Finely Tuned is an adjetive

and the term Initial Conditions is an article,

therefore these 2 terms can not be used interchangeable, and can not be synonymous, but we already agreed with a definition of FT, so why are you adding an other term?

Fine-tune would be the article of the adjective finely-tuned. Has that not been clear from the beginning? Honestly, I have rarely used the term finely-tuned in our whole discussion, thus why you would though that, while responding to a paragraph in which I say fine-tuning twice is beyond me.

Beyond that, I am not adding another term. I have been using the term initial conditions since October 22 of last year when I first started noticing that all you were doing is pointing to what our universe was like at the beginning and claiming it was fine-tuned. Both of these examples seem to be yet more evidence that you are not reading my post, but only skimming.

leroy wrote:Secondthe why question is very important, but we haven't get there yet.

these 2 questions are independent. 1 Is the universe FT?

2 Why is the universe FT?

since we haven't agreed with 1, question 2 remains silent.

Well, let us nip that right now. Since we both agree that fine-tuning is synonymous with initial conditions (as I have always suspected), we can move on to the why.

leroy wrote:since you believe that counterfactuals most be rejected by default, and since I have nothing else to offer but counterfactuals, I guess we are stocked with question 1

Again, since you admit that fine-tuning is synonymous with initial conditions, we can move on. However, I do love just how sad you appear that I will not let you proceed forward with your argument that is based on a logical fallacy. That does say a lot about you, and does not give me hope that you will do better in the future.

leroy wrote:

Irrelevant to the point I was making. You are trying to claim this low statistical likelihood is meaningful. This goes to the difference between acknowledging the initial conditions and being able to explain why they are like that. You, by invoking a Fine-Tuning Argument, are inherently claiming that you know why the initial conditions were the way they were. Now provide your evidence for that

the low statistical likelihood is meaningful because it implies a narrow rage.....

It could only imply that if you can show that the initial conditions of our universe could be different and that all life needs to be in that range.

leroy wrote:to say that the initial entropy of the universe was FT implies 2 things

1 that life (as we know it) could have only exist if the initial entropy was low

2 it is statistically unlikely to have low entropy (narrow rage)

Again, you are still assuming that the initial conditions could be different in invoking this. I thought you were done doing that? The only way for our universe to be unlikely is by claiming that there were other possible outcomes.

leroy wrote:if you grant these 2 you would grant that the initial entropy was FT

I grant that life as we know it needs low entropy and that low entropy is how our universe started. If you want to call that state of initial conditions fine-tuned than so be it. I have said since the beginning that I do not reject the initial conditions. However, to claim that our initial conditions was statistically low implies that you think there could have been other possibilities. Without demonstrating these other possibilities you cannot say our initial conditions were statistically low.

leroy wrote:after you grant this we could explore the WHY......

Honestly, it seems like you are going to have to start exploring the why now. I am not sure how you can demonstrate our initial conditions were statistically low without it.

leroy wrote:maybe we where just lucky

maybe the low entropy was caused by an unknown natural mechanism

maybe a designer did it.

Well, you think you know, so demonstrate it.

leroy wrote:but sadly we will never explore the WHY question, because you still deny that the universe is FT, and I have no evidence to offer except for those counterfactuals, ......this counterfactuals are good enough to convince the majority of experts, but for some reason they are not good enough to convince you.

You still never demonstrated any experts that agree with fine-tuning, although it is hilarious to see you sit there and think you have. Beyond that, since we already agreed that what you mean by fine-tuning is just synonymous with initial conditions, than we can move past it (one wonders why you could not agree to this months ago when I first pointed it out). In fact, when one makes a Fine-Tuning Argument, the why seems key to it, otherwise one is just pointing at the initial conditions and claiming them as fine-tuned without a demonstration of it.

Well, let us nip that right now. Since we both agree that fine-tuning is synonymous with initial conditions (as I have always suspected), we can move on to the why.

Well I dont know, we both agree that the definition of FT is this one.

is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood

are you saying that initial conditions has the same definition?

If I say something like, The cosmos is fine tuned for the existence of life, I don't see how would you use the term initial conditions as a substitute.....

Well, let us nip that right now. Since we both agree that fine-tuning is synonymous with initial conditions (as I have always suspected), we can move on to the why.

Well I dont know, we both agree that the definition of FT is this one.

is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood

That is the definition that we both agreed upon. However, we also both agreed that you could not proves this without relying on logical fallacies.

leroy wrote:are you saying that initial conditions has the same definition?

If I say something like, The cosmos is fine tuned for the existence of life, I don't see how would you use the term initial conditions as a substitute.....

No. What I am saying is that you have also said that our observable universe was fine-tune in the beginning. This gets to the why, and it seems like you will not be able to actually show any fine-tuning without the why. Thus, when you say X is fine-tuned for Y, you are making a positive claim. However, you readily admitted yourself that you cannot demonstrate that our observable universe is fine-tuned. Again, I cannot see how you can demonstrate this fine-tuning without the why.

That is the definition that we both agreed upon. However, we also both agreed that you could not proves this without relying on logical fallacies.

Yes, the only difference is that you think that evidence based on counterfactuals is fallacious, or weak, or meaningless.............even though you haven't done anything to support that assertion.

leroy wrote:are you saying that initial conditions has the same definition?

No. What I am saying is that you have also said that our observable universe was fine-tune in the beginning. This gets to the why, and it seems like you will not be able to actually show any fine-tuning without the why. Thus, when you say X is fine-tuned for Y, you are making a positive claim. However, you readily admitted yourself that you cannot demonstrate that our observable universe is fine-tuned. Again, I cannot see how you can demonstrate this fine-tuning without the why.

This is disappointing, given that you seem to believe that the WHY is necessary to stablish that something is FT, it is obvious that you still don't understand what is meant by FT.

the WHY has been answered anyway..........

As I claimed before I would argue that a designer is the best explanation for FT that has ever been discussed in the literature,

Or just to use a specific example, a designer is the best explanation that has ever been discussed in the literature for the initial low entropy of the universe.....

to disagree with this statement, implies that you have a better explanation in mind.

Why?

1 Because a designer is usually (if not always) the cause of FT

2 There are no good reasons to reject the design hypothesis

3 there are good reasons to reject alternative hypothesis.

we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.

That is the definition that we both agreed upon. However, we also both agreed that you could not proves this without relying on logical fallacies.

Yes, the only difference is that you think that evidence based on counterfactuals is fallacious, or weak, or meaningless.............even though you haven't done anything to support that assertion.

You readily admit that your whole argument hidges on a counterfactual conditional, which is a logical fallacy? Do you really need me to explain to you why one should not use logical fallacies in an discussion?

leroy wrote:

leroy wrote:are you saying that initial conditions has the same definition?

No. What I am saying is that you have also said that our observable universe was fine-tune in the beginning. This gets to the why, and it seems like you will not be able to actually show any fine-tuning without the why. Thus, when you say X is fine-tuned for Y, you are making a positive claim. However, you readily admitted yourself that you cannot demonstrate that our observable universe is fine-tuned. Again, I cannot see how you can demonstrate this fine-tuning without the why.

This is disappointing, given that you seem to believe that the WHY is necessary to stablish that something is FT, it is obvious that you still don't understand what is meant by FT.

I obviously do, since you already readily admit that the only way you can show our universe to be fine-tuned is by relying on a logical fallacy.

leroy wrote:the WHY has been answered anyway..........

As I claimed before I would argue that a designer is the best explanation for FT that has ever been discussed in the literature,

The literature!? Please cite a cosmology article that ever argued for a designer.

leroy wrote:Or just to use a specific example, a designer is the best explanation that has ever been discussed in the literature for the initial low entropy of the universe.....

Again, citation needed. I would love to see these actual articles in cosmological journals that invoke a designer.

leroy wrote:to disagree with this statement, implies that you have a better explanation in mind.

No, it does not. It just means I do not believe your claim. Stop trying to shift your burden

leroy wrote:Why?

1 Because a designer is usually (if not always) the cause of FT

You never demonstrated that universe as we know it was fine-tuned. You even readily admit that your whole argument to show that it is fine-tuned is based on a logical fallacy. However, it appears you are trying to argue in a circle that the universe is fine-tuned, because it has a designer, and we know it has a designer, because it was fine-tuned.

leroy wrote:2 There are no good reasons to reject the design hypothesis

There is also no good reason to reject fairies using magic. However, that is not how this works. Both of those, fairies and your designer, need to be ruled in at this point, not out.

leroy wrote:3 there are good reasons to reject alternative hypothesis.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You readily admit that your whole argument hidges on a counterfactual conditional, which is a logical fallacy? Do you really need me to explain to you why one should not use logical fallacies in an discussion? ?

well in order to make a valid point, what you would have to do is prove that counterfactuals are necessarily logical fallacies ....why should anyone dismiss an argument just because you personally don't like counterfactuals?

The literature!? Please cite a cosmology article that ever argued for a designer.

this is not even the first time I quoted the article, which makes me wonder, why are you asking for sources if you will ignore them anyway?

leroy wrote:to disagree with this statement, implies that you have a better explanation in mind.

No, it does not. It just means I do not believe your claim. Stop trying to shift your burden

Yes it does imply that you have a better explanation in mind

if you disagree with this statement....

design is the best explanation for FT that has even been discussed in the literature

you are implying that you have a better explanation in mind................for example if I say that John is the best student in class and you disagree, you are implying that you think that there is a better student.

1 Because a designer is usually (if not always) the cause of FT

You never demonstrated that universe as we know it was fine-tuned. You even readily admit that your whole argument to show that it is fine-tuned is based on a logical fallacy. However, it appears you are trying to argue in a circle that the universe is fine-tuned, because it has a designer, and we know it has a designer, because it was fine-tuned

the funny thing is that you are not disagreeing with the statement, you agree that FT is usually caused by intelligent design......the only point of disagreement seems to be that you don't accept that the universe is FT, but you don't seem to disagree with the fact that FT is usually caused by design.

leroy wrote:2 There are no good reasons to reject the design hypothesis

There is also no good reason to reject fairies using magic. However, that is not how this works. Both of those, fairies and your designer, need to be ruled in at this point, not out.

the funny thing is that you are not disagreeing with my point, you are agreeing on that there are no good reasons to reject the design hypothesis.

leroy wrote:3 there are good reasons to reject alternative hypothesis.

the funny thing is that you don't disagree with me, you agree that there are good reasons to reject rival hypothesis

leroy wrote:we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.

[Conclusion, you used nothing but logical fallacies in this discussion and seem to not understand why that is a bad thing.

so in conclusion, we agree on this points

1 FT is usually caused by design

2 there are no good reasons to reject design

3 there are good reasons to reject competing theories

the only point of disagreement is that you think that these don't represent good reasons to conclude intelligent design.......

this is like saying, diarrea is usually caused by something that you eat, (food) there is no good reason to think that diarrea was not caused by food, there are good reasons to reject other hypothesis (genetic defect, air contamination, stress, drugs...)

given this scenario it is latest reasonable to accept food as the best explanation for diarrea.

an other point of disagreement is that you believe that any statement based on counterfactuals most be rejected, but you haven't donde anything to prove that point......I already provided examples on things that are accepted even if based on counterfactuals, this should be enough to show that at least sometimes counterfactuals are useful tools to determine a scientific truth.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You readily admit that your whole argument hidges on a counterfactual conditional, which is a logical fallacy? Do you really need me to explain to you why one should not use logical fallacies in an discussion? ?

well in order to make a valid point, what you would have to do is prove that counterfactuals are necessarily logical fallacies ....why should anyone dismiss an argument just because you personally don't like counterfactuals?

Just like I thought that you only skim my post, I have long thought that you do not read the citations I link in my posts. The citation I posted (and you quoted) explains why it is necessarily a logical fallacy.

leroy wrote:

The literature!? Please cite a cosmology article that ever argued for a designer.

this is not even the first time I quoted the article, which makes me wonder, why are you asking for sources if you will ignore them anyway?

I asked for a cosmology article, not a History and Philosophy of Physics paper.

leroy wrote:

leroy wrote:to disagree with this statement, implies that you have a better explanation in mind.

No, it does not. It just means I do not believe your claim. Stop trying to shift your burden

Yes it does imply that you have a better explanation in mind

No it does not. It means I do not believe your claim and you need to provide evidence for it. Stop trying to shift your burden.

leroy wrote:if you disagree with this statement....

design is the best explanation for FT that has even been discussed in the literature

you are implying that you have a better explanation in mind................for example if I say that John is the best student in class and you disagree, you are implying that you think that there is a better student.

Here is the thing, I am simply asking you to prove that John is the best student. My skepticism of that statement just means you need to meet your burden and demonstrate it to be true. Nothing else.

leroy wrote:

1 Because a designer is usually (if not always) the cause of FT

You never demonstrated that universe as we know it was fine-tuned. You even readily admit that your whole argument to show that it is fine-tuned is based on a logical fallacy. However, it appears you are trying to argue in a circle that the universe is fine-tuned, because it has a designer, and we know it has a designer, because it was fine-tuned

the funny thing is that you are not disagreeing with the statement, you agree that FT is usually caused by intelligent design......the only point of disagreement seems to be that you don't accept that the universe is FT, but you don't seem to disagree with the fact that FT is usually caused by design.

First off, we never made it to whether I disagree that fine-tuning means there is a designer. You never demonstrated that the universe as we know it was fine-tuned and I pointed out (and you removed) that you were using circular reasoning. Want to know if I disagree or not that fine-tuning implies a designer?

leroy wrote:

leroy wrote:2 There are no good reasons to reject the design hypothesis

There is also no good reason to reject fairies using magic. However, that is not how this works. Both of those, fairies and your designer, need to be ruled in at this point, not out.

the funny thing is that you are not disagreeing with my point, you are agreeing on that there are no good reasons to reject the design hypothesis.

Just like I agree with fairies. If you think that is something special, than that says a lot more about you then it does about me.

leroy wrote:

leroy wrote:3 there are good reasons to reject alternative hypothesis.

the funny thing is that you don't disagree with me, you agree that there are good reasons to reject rival hypothesis

Incorrect. I was just pointing out that you are relying on another logical fallacy. You actually never showed that other possibilities are wrong. Honestly, Dragan Glas, Akamia, and Nesslig20 all demonstrated on this thread that you have no idea about what you were talking about when it came to alternatives.

leroy wrote:

leroy wrote:we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.

[Conclusion, you used nothing but logical fallacies in this discussion and seem to not understand why that is a bad thing.

so in conclusion, we agree on this points

1 FT is usually caused by design

2 there are no good reasons to reject design

3 there are good reasons to reject competing theories

No. See above and work on your reading comprehension. However, nice try trying to rewrite history.

leroy wrote:the only point of disagreement is that you think that these don't represent good reasons to conclude intelligent design.......

Wrong. You never demonstrated that the universe as we know it is fine-tuned. That is our impasse.

leroy wrote:this is like saying, diarrea is usually caused by something that you eat, (food) there is no good reason to think that diarrea was not caused by food, there are good reasons to reject other hypothesis (genetic defect, air contamination, stress, drugs...)

given this scenario it is latest reasonable to accept food as the best explanation for diarrea.

Using this example, you never demonstrated that someone had diarrhoea. Thus, trying to explain it is pointless. First you need to demonstrate that someone had diarrhoea, than you can move on to explaining what caused it.

leroy wrote:an other point of disagreement is that you believe that any statement based on counterfactuals most be rejected, but you haven't donde anything to prove that point......I already provided examples on things that are accepted even if based on counterfactuals, this should be enough to show that at least sometimes counterfactuals are useful tools to determine a scientific truth.

Again, read the citations I gave. Beyond that, you never demonstrated that counterfactuals are useful to determining a scientific truth. In fact, Your example of CO2 showed exactly why we cannot reply only on them, but need actual real world evidence to make conclusions.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You readily admit that your whole argument hidges on a counterfactual conditional, which is a logical fallacy? Do you really need me to explain to you why one should not use logical fallacies in an discussion? ?

Leroy

well in order to make a valid point, what you would have to do is prove that counterfactuals are necessarily logical fallacies ....why should anyone dismiss an argument just because you personally don't like counterfactuals?

HWN

Just like I thought that you only skim my post, I have long thought that you do not read the citations I link in my posts. The citation I posted (and you quoted) explains why it is necessarily a logical fallacy.

so please stop posting random links, I told you this is annoying, why don't you copy/paste the exact portion of the articles where the author proves that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious?..............you wont copy paste anything because the proof is not there, for some reason you believe that posting random and unrelated links as proof is a good strategy .

it is true that some fallacies are based on CF, but that doesn't mean that all CF are fallacious.

Again, read the citations I gave. Beyond that, you never demonstrated that counterfactuals are useful to determining a scientific truth. In fact, Your example of CO2 showed exactly why we cannot reply only on them, but need actual real world evidence to make conclusions

that doesn't change the fact that global warming is based on CF reasoning

therefore (CF Reasoning)if Omega would have been different form 1 the universe would not be flat

Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed

So why don't you simply admit that CF are not necessarily fallacious, just admit that you are wrong, .............granted counterfactuals are not necessarily true ether, as you said before, we need evidence, but the evidence has been provided..........for example the second law tells us that if the entropy where high the temperature of the universe would be homogenous and no hot spots (stars) would not exist.

the law of gravity tells us, that if the force of gravity is too strong (and the space too small) the whole system would collapse in a black hole

etc.......

so my CF are supported by evidence,

I asked for a cosmology article, not a History and Philosophy of Physics paper.

however it is still an article that talks about cosmology and it is still literature

Here is the thing, I am simply asking you to prove that John is the best student. My skepticism of that statement just means you need to meet your burden and demonstrate it to be true. Nothing else.

there is a difference between skepticism and disagreement, ..........so who are you?

the skeptic guy> are you the guy who doesn't know anything about John or his classmates and therefore you don't have enough information to judge weather if John is the best student or not (no burden proof required)

or

the guy who disagrees> the guy who thinks that there are good reasons to assert that there are better students that John? (burden proof required)

First off, we never made it to whether I disagree that fine-tuning means there is a designer. You never demonstrated that the universe as we know it was fine-tuned and I pointed out (and you removed) that you were using circular reasoning. Want to know if I disagree or not that fine-tuning implies a designer?

yes, and even more important, I what to know why you agree or disagree........

BTW, I am not claiming that FT always implies design, I am saying that it usually implies design..

Just like I agree with fairies. If you think that is something special, than that says a lot more about you then it does about me.

however it is still a fact that you agree........there are no good reasons to reject design.

after we ever agree that design is the best explanation for FT, we can discuss on weather if God is a better design hypothesis than farriers or not.

Incorrect. I was just pointing out that you are relying on another logical fallacy. You actually never showed that other possibilities are wrong. Honestly, Dragan Glas, Akamia, and Nesslig20 all demonstrated on this thread that you have no idea about what you were talking about when it came to alternatives.

I told you before, you look pathetic and ridiculous when you defend atheist even when they are wrong. .......none of them where capable of solving the BBP, they all abandoned the conversation.

Assuming that the lo entropy of the universe is a product of chance............it would be more probably to live in a universe with higher entropy and to imagine a universe with low entropy, than to actually live in a universe with low entropy...........I did provided evidence for this statement, and none of your friends where able to disprove it.

but even more important, they where unable to proof that the universe could have been different (as predicted by the multiverse) so by your standards (not mine) this is sufficient reason to reject the multiverse hypothesis, ............using your own standards there are good reasons to reject the multiverse hypothesis therefore you agree with this statement.

3 there are good reasons to reject alternative hypothesis

Using this example, you never demonstrated that someone had diarrhoea. Thus, trying to explain it is pointless. First you need to demonstrate that someone had diarrhoea, than you can move on to explaining what caused it.

[/quote]

granted, we haven't agreed on weather if the universe is FT or not, the ball is currently on your side, you have to prove that CF are necessarily fallacious. or at least prove that these particular CF are fallacious,

the diarrea analogy is only aplicable if you grant FT, .......the diarrea analogy is related to the WHY...........

leroy wrote:we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.

Oh well.

leroy wrote:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You readily admit that your whole argument hidges on a counterfactual conditional, which is a logical fallacy? Do you really need me to explain to you why one should not use logical fallacies in an discussion? ?

Leroy

well in order to make a valid point, what you would have to do is prove that counterfactuals are necessarily logical fallacies ....why should anyone dismiss an argument just because you personally don't like counterfactuals?

HWN

Just like I thought that you only skim my post, I have long thought that you do not read the citations I link in my posts. The citation I posted (and you quoted) explains why it is necessarily a logical fallacy.

leroy wrote:so please stop posting random links, I told you this is annoying, why don't you copy/paste the exact portion of the articles where the author proves that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious?..............you wont copy paste anything because the proof is not there, for some reason you believe that posting random and unrelated links as proof is a good strategy .

Again, it is there. We have been down this road several times before when people would quote things directly at you and you still ignored it. I am just skipping that step. Anyone following this discussion will click the link, see that I am right, and that you need to work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:it is true that some fallacies are based on CF, but that doesn't mean that all CF are fallacious.

Go back and read the source I linked and you quoted.

leroy wrote:

Again, read the citations I gave. Beyond that, you never demonstrated that counterfactuals are useful to determining a scientific truth. In fact, Your example of CO2 showed exactly why we cannot reply only on them, but need actual real world evidence to make conclusions

that doesn't change the fact that global warming is based on CF reasoning

FactCO2 causes global warming

therefore (CF reasoning)reducing CO2 would reduce global warming

We did not know that until after we ran the real world experiment (I have explained this several times now). That is why it was not a fact until after we ran the experiment, it was a hypothesis at best. Again, several of the things they predicted were wrong. This is beyond the fact that they used their counterfactual to generate real world testable predictions. You never came close to that step.

therefore (CF Reasoning)if Omega would have been different form 1 the universe would not be flat

Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed

As I said dozens of times now, I am fine with the initial conditions of our universe. You think that this is meaningful beyond just the basic observation. You still have not demonstrated that.

leroy wrote:So why don't you simply admit that CF are not necessarily fallacious, just admit that you are wrong,

Because, I am not wrong. Go back and read my citation and work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:granted counterfactuals are not necessarily true ether, as you said before, we need evidence, but the evidence has been provided.......................for example the second law tells us that if the entropy where high the temperature of the universe would be homogenous and no hot spots (stars) would not exist.

the law of gravity tells us, that if the force of gravity is too strong (and the space too small) the whole system would collapse in a black hole

etc.......

so my CF are supported by evidence,

You just admitted that I am right about counterfactuals by stating they are not necessarily true without evidence right after demanding that I admit that I am wrong. Beyond that, you have not provided any evidence. All you are doing (again) is pointing to the initial conditions of our universe and claiming them as fine-tuned without demonstrating it.

leroy wrote:

I asked for a cosmology article, not a History and Philosophy of Physics paper.

however it is still an article that talks about cosmology and it is still literature

Do you honestly believe this is a point in your favor? Beyond that, do you not see the world of difference between a science journal and a philosophy/history journal? This statement alone says more about you than I ever could.

leroy wrote:

Here is the thing, I am simply asking you to prove that John is the best student. My skepticism of that statement just means you need to meet your burden and demonstrate it to be true. Nothing else.

there is a difference between skepticism and disagreement, ..........so who are you?

the skeptic guy> are you the guy who doesn't know anything about John or his classmates and therefore you don't have enough information to judge weather if John is the best student or not (no burden proof required)

or

the guy who disagrees> the guy who thinks that there are good reasons to assert that there are better students that John? (burden proof required)

You should be able to tell that from my answer, the one you are responding to. You do love to ask questions that have already been answered. Perhaps you would not do that if you worked on your reading comprehension. I am the first guy.

leroy wrote:

First off, we never made it to whether I disagree that fine-tuning means there is a designer. You never demonstrated that the universe as we know it was fine-tuned and I pointed out (and you removed) that you were using circular reasoning. Want to know if I disagree or not that fine-tuning implies a designer?

yes, and even more important, I what to know why you agree or disagree........

leroy wrote:BTW, I am not claiming that FT always implies design, I am saying that it usually implies design..

Than, by your own admission, even if you could show that the universe as we know it was fine-tuned, you would have no way to show that it was designed. You just keep doing a fantastic job destroying your own argument.

leroy wrote:

Just like I agree with fairies. If you think that is something special, than that says a lot more about you then it does about me.

however it is still a fact that you agree........there are no good reasons to reject design.

Again, if you think this is a point in your favor, than you should really start to question your position.

leroy wrote:after we ever agree that design is the best explanation for FT, we can discuss on weather if God is a better design hypothesis than farriers or not.

The fact that your god is on the same level as fairies should be all one needs to know about your arguments and your god.

leroy wrote:

Incorrect. I was just pointing out that you are relying on another logical fallacy. You actually never showed that other possibilities are wrong. Honestly, Dragan Glas, Akamia, and Nesslig20 all demonstrated on this thread that you have no idea about what you were talking about when it came to alternatives.

I told you before, you look pathetic and ridiculous when you defend atheist even when they are wrong. .......none of them where capable of solving the BBP, they all abandoned the conversation

Assuming that the lo entropy of the universe is a product of chance............it would be more probably to live in a universe with higher entropy and to imagine a universe with low entropy, than to actually live in a universe with low entropy...........I did provided evidence for this statement, and none of your friends where able to disprove it.

They all did. Work on your reading comprehension. Beyond that, your solving of the BBP was GodDidIt. You know that is not an actual answer, right?

leroy wrote:but even more important, they where unable to proof that the universe could have been different (as predicted by the multiverse) so by your standards (not mine) this is sufficient reason to reject the multiverse hypothesis, ............using your own standards there are good reasons to reject the multiverse hypothesis therefore you agree with this statement.

Using this example, you never demonstrated that someone had diarrhoea. Thus, trying to explain it is pointless. First you need to demonstrate that someone had diarrhoea, than you can move on to explaining what caused it.

granted, we haven't agreed on weather if the universe is FT or not, the ball is currently on your side, you have to prove that CF are necessarily fallacious. or at least prove that these particular CF are fallacious,

the diarrea analogy is only aplicable if you grant FT, .......the diarrea analogy is related to the WHY...........

leroy wrote:granted counterfactuals are not necessarily true ether, as you said before, we need evidence, but the evidence has been provided.......................for example the second law tells us that if the entropy where high the temperature of the universe would be homogenous and no hot spots (stars) would not exist.

the law of gravity tells us, that if the force of gravity is too strong (and the space too small) the whole system would collapse in a black hole

etc.......

so my CF are supported by evidence

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You just admitted that I am right about counterfactuals by stating they are not necessarily true without evidence right after demanding that I admit that I am wrong. Beyond that, you have not provided any evidence. All you are doing (again) is pointing to the initial conditions of our universe and claiming them as fine-tuned without demonstrating it.

There is a big difference between this 2 statements, I am sure that even your atheist friends in this forum would grant that there is a difference between this 2 statements, and I am sure that you also know it, but for some reason you like to act like a 12yo and pretend that you disagree.

1 Counterfactuals (CF) are necessarily fallacious (your claim)

2 Counterfactuals are not necessarily true (my claim)

So far you haven't done anything to prove your claim, all you have done is post 2 random links from 2 un related articles than don't even claim (let alone prove) that counterfactuals are necessarily fallacious.

To say that Counterfactuals are not necessary true, implies that I would have to provide additional evidence. But in this case evidence has been provided....

We know that the force of attraction depends on the force of gravity (the stronger the force of gravity the stronger the attraction)

we know that if gravity is too strong, and the space too small, all matter would be attracted in a small point creating a black whole.

we knw that the universe was small in the past (when it was just a few seconds old)

we know that stars, planets, molecules etc. can not exist inside a black hole

we know that life as we know it, can not exist if stars, planets, molecules don't exist.

this is what is meant by FT, if you accept all this uncontroversial statements you agree with FT, if you don't what to call it FT, feel free to use a different word,

Leroy

there is a difference between skepticism and disagreement, ..........so who are you?

the skeptic guy> are you the guy who doesn't know anything about John or his classmates and therefore you don't have enough information to judge weather if John is the best student or not (no burden proof required)

or

the guy who disagrees> the guy who thinks that there are good reasons to assert that there are better students that John? (burden proof required)

HWN

You should be able to tell that from my answer, the one you are responding to. You do love to ask questions that have already been answered. Perhaps you would not do that if you worked on your reading comprehension. I am the first guy.

Well if you are the first guy, then do some research on the topic, look for arguments for and against design, and after you do that please let us know if you disagree with this statement or not

statement> design is the best explanation of FT that has ever been proposed

If you do your research and conclude that the statement is wrong, that would imply that you have a better explanation in mind. leroy

yes, and even more important, I what to know why you agree or disagree........

hwn

No, because of the second point of my argument.

yes granted, evolution is also a posible source of FT, something can be FT because of evolution, however we do have good reasons to reject evolution and we do not have any good reasons to reject design.

both are posible explanations, but in both cases I think there are good reasons to reject them

just 2 questionsare you suggesting that evolution is a better explanation than design? this is a yes or no question

which one of the 2 evolutions are you supporting? in your argument you seem to support number 2, but I just what to be sure.

leroy wrote:BTW, I am not claiming that FT always implies design, I am saying that it usually implies design..

Than, by your own admission, even if you could show that the universe as we know it was fine-tuned, you would have no way to show that it was designed. You just keep doing a fantastic job destroying your own argument.

granted, the FT of the universes is an uncontroversial fact, as I told you earlier, most scientists accept that the universe is FT,

the controversy rest on what is the best explanation for FT,

Again, if you think this is a point in your favor, than you should really start to question your position

The fact that your god is on the same level as fairies should be all one needs to know about your arguments and your god

the thing is that you really think that you are making a grate point with your farriers, as I told you earlier the FT argument does not aspire to prove that my God is the fine tuner, the argument aspires to show what it was designed by any intelligent designer,

weather if the designer is God, Aliens,, or farriers is relevant for an other discussion where I would provide evidence that excludes Aliens and farriers

he_who_is_nobody Do you honestly believe this is a point in your favor? Beyond that, do you not see the world of difference between a science journal and a philosophy/history journal? This statement alone says more about you than I ever could

well this quote also says much about you, ..... you reject an article by default just because it is published in a philosophical journal, ...

They all did. Work on your reading comprehension. Beyond that, your solving of the BBP was GodDidIt. You know that is not an actual answer, right

well if your atheist friends solve the BBP, then they should be very busy working in a research article that solves a problem that no one has ever solved, maybe they can even win a novel price with their article..........well that explains why they abandoned the conversation, they are simply to busy working in their article.

No God did it is not my solution..........my solution is chance didn't done it. the BBP only applies if you adopt a chance hypothesis, so you have to alternatives, ether solve the BBP or adopt a none chance hypothesis (design and evolution are examples of non chance hypothesis)

leroy wrote:but even more important, they where unable to proof that the universe could have been different (as predicted by the multiverse) so by your standards (not mine) this is sufficient reason to reject the multiverse hypothesis, ............using your own standards there are good reasons to reject the multiverse hypothesis therefore you agree with this statement.

I never claimed to be a devotee to the multiverse. Not sure why you think this is a big deal. In fact, Nesslig20 went out of his way to say he was not arguing for the multiverse either. Perhaps, work on your reading comprehension?

As it is usually the case with you, your answer has nothing to do with my comment,

the point that I was making is that the multiverse hypothesis presupposes that things like the initial conditions of the universe could have been different, since none of your atheist friends proved that things could have been different, then by your own standards the multiverse hypothesis has to be rejected by default, until they prove that things could have been different. So even by your own standards and even if we ignore the BBP, your atheist friends failed.